Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:
…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.
…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.
Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.
So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!
Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.
While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.
That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.
With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)
[audio:https://floppingaces.net/Audio/gibsonpaul.mp3]And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?
The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.
PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.
The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.
It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.
See author page
Ron Paul is really fading in polls.
Ron Paul loves to tout his TEA Party credentials but only 15% of TEA Party members will vote for Ron Paul in FLA.
(16% Santorum, 17% Romney, & 52% Gingrich!)
Ron Paul is also ranked lowest (only 10%) in ”best personal character.”
Ron Paul polls lowest in best in terms of social issues at only 17%.
And overall favorable opinion?
Again, Ron Paul gets the F.
77% have a favorable opinion of Romney,while 69% say the same of Gingrich, 64% give Santorum positive reviews, but only 33% have a favorable opinion of Paul.
@RPIR: You said:
Easy. Ronald Reagan
No, I leave that in your more than capable hands.
Rich
Calling me out? Pffft! Only took me how many times to get him to have enough stones to try to “sell” (his word) Ron Paul to us.
He asked who my perfect candidate is, I answered.
You said:
Another easy one. I am a Conservative.
Yes, I was calling you out Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti Western style, music and all…..And you wimped out with Ronald Reagan. :þ
Two post in one day… (I would have responded faster if I didn’t have this annoying thing called work to have to deal with)
Hi there anticsrocks, in post #97 RPIR asked which candidate you supported, that was my question as well in posts #100 & #101. So unfortunately Ronald Reagan is not a valid answer. Therefor I repeat my question, Could you please tell us which candidate best represents your idea of conservative values and whom do you think we should vote for?
Anticsrocks re. your #110 answer to my #107 request. Meat Loaf (2 outta 3—). Why do you think so many Conservs..like Bolton,Haley and Coulter are backing Romney over Gingrich?
Aqua:
RPIR asked me who my perfect candidate was. Therefore Ronald Reagan is a completely appropriate answer.
Who do I think you ought to vote for? The candidate of your choosing.
Who will I be voting for in the Primary?
Newt Gingrich. He has an ACU lifetime rating of 90% and 98.6% on pro-life issues. His voting record and record of accomplishments warrant a serious look at him. I am not so troubled with the so-called off the wall statements he has made in the past. Newt’s biggest problem is that sometimes he over thinks a situation and says things that establishment folks don’t like.
Rich:For the same reasons they backed McCain. For the establishment, the safe candidate is always their choice.
anticsrocks
YES YOU MAKE SENSE AS ACCUATE AS ALL YOUR ANSWERS FROM PREVIOUS COMMENTS
BYE
Ron Paul Is Right
I must say your comments are very interesting, and civils,
we get to respect RON PAUL , HE HAS MANY QUALITIES, WHICH WE LIKES
AND APPRECIATES,
AND THAT.S THE REASON YOU AND THE OTHERS ARE LOYAL TO HIM,
you and POPPA-T CONTRIBUTED TO SHOW VERY WELL WHAT HE IS FOR, and
THE RESTITUTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THE TOP CHOICE OF HIS CAMPAIGN,
WHICH I respect like OTHER,, even if they have other choice of CANDIDATES, ANTICSROCKS SAID THE CHOICE YOU CHOOSE IS THE RIGHT ONE APPLICABLE TO EACH HIS OWN,
AND THAT IS WELL SAID,
BYE
“I am a Realpolitik Wilsonian” Newt Gingrich?!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T76lD4zV1bo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOnWzGB7G1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJQsLFhuyOY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUKKgc76Hdo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Na7R50jGc
@Ron Paul Is Right: Let me take these one at a time, because I did take the time to sit and watch all the videos you linked to. None of them are anything new, and nearly all are taken out of context.
In reverse order of what you posted:
I am a Conservative and I think most everyone who knows me understands that. But guess what? I admire FDR. He handled WWII a hell of a lot better than LBJ handled Viet Nam. He got his agenda accomplished, and yes, it was a horrible one and I disagree with it totally. Am I not allowed to admire his chutzpah? I am just glad that Obama is as ineffectual a leader as he is and doesn’t possess FDR’s leadership style. Then we would really be in trouble.
Now that I have stated I admire FDR, does that make me a RINO?
This is exactly the same way I rebutted another one of these hit piece, trash videos over at CH 2.0.
Once again, RPIR it looks as if you rely on links and other people’s work to make your own points. Too bad, I was hoping to have a real discussion with you.
@anticsrocks:
No, none of them are new and none of them take him out of context. Whenever this guy gets cornered, or is showing people how “smart” he is, he always reverts back to his progressive belief that big government can help the world progress past all its ills. In his warped world, government knows best what to do with your land, what companies deserve to win, what you should be allowed to eat, what energy you should be allowed to use, what companies you should be allowed to invest in, etc.
Note: these were the first six links I got from youtube. There are hundreds of examples of this guy preaching progressive ideology.
Note 2: You selectively left out where this Realpolitik Wilsonian says the “Four Freedoms” are still relevant. The “Four Freedoms” outlined by Franklin Roosevelt: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Let me guess, you don’t see anything wrong with the last two negative freedoms, right?
Provided you’re not playing devil’s advocate, It’s just too bad you don’t vote like one. (But you could say that for a lot of today’s modern “conservatives” (aka progressives))
I guess that really depends of what you admire him for. If you’re like Newt and you admire him for his attacks on the free market, personal freedom, liberty and the like, then yeah, you’re a RINO.
@Ron Paul Is Right: If your problem with reading comprehension is as bad as your visual learning capacity, then you probably won’t understand anything I posted. But you just keep playing copy and paste and think that makes you smart.
Your level of condescension is really indicative of the average Paul Bearer, and that attests as to why he is last in the polls. Just because you like one candidate and someone else likes another, doesn’t make you eternally 100% correct. Conversely, it doesn’t make the other person 100% wrong. I have said that there are aspects of Ron Paul’s platform that I think make sense. He loses me when he starts saying things like it is perfectly normal for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They could fire one and not even hit a US city, the EMP from even a small nuke detonated 50 miles above the United States would be devastating. I don’t support him for that reason, but guess what, despite what you think, that doesn’t make me a bad guy, or an uniformed guy. Because you don’t support Newt doesn’t make you a bad guy. You come one here, start throwing insults around and then refuse to try and “sell” (your word) your candidate. Only after I called you out on it repeatedly did you even try to make a very lame attempt at pushing what you perceive as his positives. Hell, you put way more energy into name calling and hostile rhetoric. Imagine how much better Ron Paul would look, if his average supporter, such as yourself, didn’t come off looking and sounding like a rabid dog.
Cue RPIR with more ad hominem attacks – now.
@anticsrocks:
So you attack the messenger(me) because you can’t dispute the message(Newt is a Realpolitik Wilsonian Progressive).
Newt is exactly what I wrote about him. He’s proud of it.
Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr….I’m sry, but I stopped caring about polls and electability long after we were saddled with these turds. From now on, I’m just going to go for the best guy for the job. (I’ll let the other party destroy their brand with progressive losers)
And just because you go nut-unh, nut-unh, nut-unh doesn’t mean Newt isn’t a Realpolitik Wilsonian Progressive who loves the Four Freedoms. The videos don’t lie.
No, they couldn’t fire anything, nuclear or not, and hit any American city. No, they couldn’t detonate a nuclear missile 50 miles above the United States. No, an EMP or missile strike from one of their missiles, when and if they ever get one and when or if they ever get a delivery system that could reach the US, wouldn’t do much damage–poor fuel, poor design, etc. (I’m sorry, but I’m not going to run around pissing myself in fear of these losers who can’t even master indoor plumbing)
They’re a joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U6bq38kGaA
Sanity check: where is the money going to come from to continue this empire(big government for foreigners)? How much of our liberty and freedom are we going to have to continue to sacrifice for it? How many more lives and trillions spent until we can declare victory and bring our troops home? What’s your realistic, just can’t fail, plan for stopping Iran from getting nukes?
I’m not insulting anybody. Newt “The Father of Contemporary Earmarking” Gingrich(http://tinyurl.com/7htbchf) proudly tells you what he is over and over again. He has no shame. (That’s why our government and debt grew under his leadership. And on the flip-side that’s why personal freedom, the Constitution, and the like, were all diminished under his leadership)
The proof is in the pudding.
@Ron Paul Is Right: And right on cue, as if I pulled your puppet strings, you come back with more self important puffing up of your chest as if you have something to prove.
You are a sad little person, and for someone who talks so much, you know very little.
It isn’t my fault if you cannot understand the context of the realpolitik Wilsonian reference. I’ve explained it once, and I shan’t do it again. Take a remedial reading course and save yourself some embarrassment.
You said:
Reminds me of something Obama said:
If you are too stupid to understand the threat of an EMP, then you are beyond any help I might be able to give you. But in the spirit of trying to assist your comprehension, I will try.
Iran’s missile capabilities from the CRS Report for Congress:
When you combine the report with Iran’s ideological Islamic fundamentalist beliefs and the immense danger that an EMP can do to our infrastructure, then any sane person can see the threat posed by Iran.
Of course I keep forgetting that you aren’t any sane person, you are a Paul Bearer.
@anticsrocks:
Unbelievable, so in your opinion no sane person could possibly support Ron Paul? You know I realized that this nation was lost during the South Carolina debate. When the crowd booed Ron for advocating that we as a Nation should practice the “Golden Rule” not just personally but in our foreign policy as well. I could not believe my ears. Were these people hearing the same words that I was? Did they claim to be Christians, as I do? If so, were these self proclaimed “Christians” actually booing the teachings of my savior?
I discovered that I was not alone when I ran across this article by Jim Babka at Downsize DC.
http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/would-jesus-have-booed-ron-pauls-golden-rule-for-foreign-policy
it mirrors my own beliefs and I hope you will take the time to read it. I was listening to Mark Levin Thursday, a man who steadfastly proclaims his devotion to the ideals of the Constitution and who was formerly one of my favorite political pundits. He was defending Speaker Gingrich from the recent spat of attacks by other conservatives. One of defenses was to play a speech of Nancy Reagan’s from 1995 at the Goldwater Institute Dinner where she says that “Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt” but left out the last part “and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive” there is a different context when you hear the whole clip and not just the part Levin used to justify his position. It was deceitful of him.
Then Friday as I was listening to his analysis of the Florida debate…. you would think there were only 3 people in the debate, he never mentioned Ron Pauls performance once, not to criticize him. On his web site Levin takes a daily poll of which candidate is doing best, once again there are only 3 choices, Dr. Paul is nowhere to be found. What is Levin, an ostrich? As if by ignoring Ron Paul he will just go away. What is he 5?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=la+la+la+i+can%27t+hear+you&mid=E4819176CCD37E13A237E4819176CCD37E13A237&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3
Newt Gingrich is having to cancel appearances due to low turnout,
http://www.9news.com/rss/article/243685/166/Gingrich-cancels-campaign-event-poor-attendance
as Ron Paul plays to packed houses at virtually every rally. Now anticsrocks you accused RPIR of ad hominem attacks yet when you post things like “you aren’t any sane person, you are a Paul Bearer” and “Your level of condescension is really indicative of the average Paul Bearer” well that seems to fit the definition of “ad hominem” much better than anything RPIR has posted.
I will say that I would prefer to see Newt over Mitt and Rick much more than Newt, but Ron’s positions are more inline with the intent of the Founders and the Constitution than all of the other three candidates combined. The way most conservative pundits, you and Mata included, ignore, belittle and degrade those of us who believe in Ron Pauls message of sound money, individual liberty and a return to the Constitutional values that made this Nation great speaks volumes, and only serves to illustrate your blind allegiance to a party that is equally culpable with the Democrats for the current bureaucratic behemoth that has run amuck and usurped what little liberty was left in this country. You have blinders on, it’s time to take them off and wake up.
@Poppa_T:
Poppa t,
Your ignorance of the distinction that Jesus made between what we, as individuals might/must do VS what gov’ts can/will do is gigantic.
Jesus expected gov’ts to act like they did than and do now, arbitrary and abusive.
He said,
Matthew 22:
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.[b] 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.[c] 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
Jesus did not expect any government to act in place of how his individual followers should act.
His followers, to this day, realize that.
@Nan G:
Hi Nan you can’t take a passage where Jesus simply confirms the earthly authority of some Governments and our duty to pay our taxes to them to justify unprovoked attack on other sovereign nations.
God is the ultimate authority and has instituted human government (Rom. 13:1) but all governments are answerable to God and will be judged by him for failure to act in his authority (Ps. 2:2-6,10) (Rev. 17-20) But the authority of government is not unlimited and blind patriotism, “my country, right or wrong” is never justified.
Absolute, unqualified subjection is only due to the unqualified authority of God. When human government usurps God’s authority, when it demands subjugation to laws contrary to God’s character and expectations. There is a legitimate cause for civil disobedience (Acts 5:29)
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/government.html
@anticsrocks:
Calm down, you’re becoming irrational.
Did government grow under his leadership? Did our debt go up under his leadership? Did earmarking go up under his leadership? Did crony capitalism go up under his leadership? Did corruption go up under his leadership? Were our rights and freedoms diminished under his leadership? (In context, Newt, a guy who thinks the four freedoms are still relevant, isn’t a conservative)
The same people who gave us reports on how Saddam was going to destroy America…And boy did he do some damage. (Trillions wasted, our rights eroded and thousands of Americans dead)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t 280 km something like 174 miles? How big are they? They’re 17 years old?
Summarize: They may or may not have 17 year old short range missiles that are the size of a bus and which will carry a nuclear payload they don’t currently have(and god only knows when or if they will ever have it). Nope, still not scared sh*tless.
Sanity check: where is the money going to come from to continue this empire(big government for foreigners)? How much of our liberty and freedom are we going to have to continue to sacrifice for it? How many more lives and trillions spent until we can finally declare victory and bring our troops home? What’s your realistic, just can’t fail, plan for stopping Iran from getting nukes?
@Poppa_T stuff:
INRE the Nancy Reagan clip… so you believe that the passing of the torch context changes because of the “keep that dream alive” phrase? Or are you just imposing your own “dream” onto every one else?
Speaking of you calling Mark Levin “deceitful”… how would you attempt to defend yourself by saying:
… then linking to an article from SC *about their primary*, to be held the next day. Needless to say, Newt wiped the floor with Romney’s butt in that primary, so that “low turn out” might have been because people made up their mind, and didn’t feeling like being saturated with yet another primary event.
But is it not “deceitful” of you to portray a Newt “low turnout” – ergo losing momentum – from a primary that was a landslide victory for him as being a current situation? Were you honest, you would have stated that was a SC related event. But then that would make you look the fool, since the primary results obviously indicated that Newt’s “low turnout” didn’t seem to affect his win there.
And the deceit continues. Apparently Ron Pauls “packed houses” didn’t happen in Florida, which is why he’s in Maine. Also apparently the SC military voters did not support Ron Paul, as you RP supporters and his ads erroneously claim. SC, a large military state, exit polls dissed that fantasy with a few facts. I will also point out that Jacksonville, FL is the home to the 3rd largest naval facility on that coast, and also home to MacDill in Tampa. RP can’t get out of the single digits in that state.
I suggest RP pull the “deceitful” ad, and tell his supporters to stop perpetuating the obvious pipe dream and distortion.
More with the personal insults based on imaginary assaults from me.
I have not degraded you because you have supported Ron Paul. Why don’t you link to a post where I did that?
What I *have* done is question your own personal “deceit” – which you seem to deplore from others but exercise yourself at every opportunity – on specifics…(i.e. that “most of the military supports Paul” crap, now effectively debunked in exit polls).
Nor have I called you a PaulBot, a PaulBearer or any other such name. And in fact I have often stated that while I will never vote for Ron Paul for POTUS/CiC, I’d be ecstatic to see him as Treasury Secretary or, even better, Federal Reserve Chair, in the next admin.
Channeling Ivan now? Or is Ivan now playing sock puppet? Or is this some strange, secret underground political society who’s having a hard time coming up with an original phrase? LOL
BTW, to update Poppa T’s “deceitful” innuendo about Newt’s “low turnout”, using a SC rally the day before his landslide victory (LOL) comes the news of the on the ground campaign in Florida, where the turnout is in “droves”.
Meanwhile both are ruffling the feathers with their mutual campaign attack ads. Huckabee wants Newt to remove his 2008 campaign statement about guys who lie to get a job, continue to lie when they *get* the job, saying it wasn’t about Romney in particular. And Tom Brokaw has demanded Romney removed 1997 footage of his broadcast, attacking Newt from his ad.
Meanwhile, Romney is still running around, chastising Newt for Fannie/Freddie, complaining that he was lending them support instead of actively supporting dismantling them. This is the guy who, in 2008, invested in the same GSEs (not in a blind trust) that he wants dismantled in order to get a piece of the subprime pie bucks. Apparently investments and principles travel two separate roads and never the twain shall meet. But I guess we’re not allowed to discuss that without being labeled anti-capitalist.
Politics is ugly business… and nice guys finish last, if they even get past the checkered flag on the track.
@MataHarley:
Yes Mame it was deceitful, also you did not get the break correct. Mrs. Reagan’s entire sentence was…
“Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive”
Mark Levin only played this part…
“Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt ”
and he left out…
“and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive”
then you Mata ask if just the part saying…
“keep that dream alive” changes the context, but for some reason you also leave “and the Republican members of Congress” out of the quote. Why?
Nancy Reagan was saying that her husband had passed the “torch” to a Republican controlled Congress that was led by Speaker Gingrich NOT specifically to Newt Gingrich and that does change the context of the quote.
Now if you have never called me or other Ron Paul supporters “paulbots” or any other derogatory name then I most humbly apologize to you and beg your forgiveness for lumping you in with many of those on this site that have. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong and I’m not going to delve through past posts in some vainglorious attempt to prove my infallibility.
Poppa T, consider the assaults on the Newt/Reagan relationship were centered around the fact that they did not agree, nor that Reagan particularly cared for Newt, there’s not much point one way or another about the Republican Congress as an “also mentioned” in the speech.
Had the attacks been true, Mrs. Reagan would not have singled out Newt by name (and no other specific Republican leaders), and just said to the Republican Congress. And of course any Republican torch is supposed to be passed on to future party elected members.
It’s not deceitful. But your rewording of Mrs. Reagan’s words, and the impact of the order are.
Pertinent language:
Perhaps it bears noting that Barry Goldwater was not handing over that torch to a Speaker Ronald Reagan, since he’s never been the Speaker of the House. The specific inclusion of Newt, by name, and twice favorably, by a woman who takes no prisoners with her husbands wishes and legacy, quashes the notion that Reagan held no particular favorable regard for Newt. In fact, it was the contrary.
And your apology is graciously accepted. I did not, in fact, label you with any derogatory names because of your support for RP. There are many aspects to the man I like immensely. But there are some that are simply a no go for the POTUS position. But I feel losing him as a valuable admin member… where he could actually be more effective implementing his fiscal policies… would be a great loss to the nation. So I hope any GOP nominee keeps that in mind, since he is retiring from the House.
Curt’s original post quotes about Iran with this:
The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.
It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, maybe a Ron Paul supporter could explain why, for the last 3 years, Ron Paul’s website has been publicizing and distributing the infamous anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Meetings of the Elders of Zion.
Here’s one link with a screen capture of the page.
Scan down to the comments to see that some have seen this ad for years.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/26/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-ron-paul/
One commenter mirrors my opinion of anyone who likes that forgery enough to want his friends to read it….he writes:
“The Protocols are the smoking gun of Jew hatred. Anyone who peddles it or allows it be peddled in their name, hates Jews, period.”
My dear Mata it might “quash” Mrs. Reagan’s intentions to you, but I disagree with your interpretation, and just as you find Ron Paul unacceptable to assume the position of President I likewise find both Gingrich and Romney to be equally unpalatable.
@Nan G:
Nan, I have been listening to Ron Paul speak for over 20 years and not once have I ever seen something that can be directly attributed to him that has in anyway been racist or antisemitic. I have however seen many things like this…
http://www.examiner.com/elections-2010-in-wilmington/jon-huntsman-staff-creates-a-hit-piece-about-huntsman-claims-ron-paul-did-it
http://digitaljournal.com/article/317913
so personally I give little credence to them.
@Ron Paul Is Right: You said:
Did the government grow under his leadership? Well, that is a pretty ambiguous question. Specify.
Did our debt go up under his leadership?
Did crony capitalism go up…Did earmarking go up…? I can understand how one might be able to ascertain how earmarks went up, but how does one measure crony capitalism? That is rather subjective.
Bottom line is that I can appreciate Ron Paul’s good points, his fiscal policies. I cannot get behind his blame America, 9/11 truther stances and his acceptance of Iran getting nuclear weapons.
You on the other hand seem unable to give any other candidate their due. Newt has a big record of great Conservative accomplishments, yet to hear you tell it, he is to the left of Obama. I do not support Mitt Romney, but he has a private sector record of job creation. His record as Gov. of Massachusetts is dismal insofar as gauged by Conservative standards. Rick Santorum is a pretty strong social Conservative, but he has a lower ACU rating than Newt. He also seems to favor spending too much for my tastes.
But do you not see the difference? I can point to positives of each candidate still in the race, yet you are unable to do the same. Your blind adherence to RP can be construed as admirable, but this cult of personality that surrounds him is unnerving and creepy.
RP’s foreign policy is way to the left of Obama and it is basically McGovern’s stance rehashed.
As to why I refer to RP supporters as Paul Bearers. The answer is two fold. First of all he will never get the nomination, so therefore supporting him is a dead end proposition. The best RP’s folks can hope for is that he does well enough that Newt or Romney invites him to be a part of their admin in some capacity. Secondly, I have tried to engage RP supporters and whenever I have asked about things in RP’s past, I get rabidly attacked.
I have a huge problem with his foreign policy.
I have a big problem with his racist and anti-Semitic remarks in his newsletters. He claims he did not write them, but he sure did collect the profits from them.
I have a problem with the way he claims he votes against earmarks (an issue YOU brought up earlier on this thread, accusing Newt of increasing them, in fact you called him ‘Newt “The Father of Contemporary Earmarking” Gingrich’) then he inserts earmarks into bills he knows will pass and that he can vote no on.
So you can go ahead and support him if you want. I will continue to support Newt and we will see who wins. Newt may win, he may not-Lord knows the establishment is in a frenzy over his successes on the campaign trail and are doing everything in their power to prevent his win. RP isn’t going to win, period.
Newt on paying down the national debt:
From an interview in May of 2011:
Wow, what a progressive…
/sarcasm off
@Poppa_T:
Poppa T
Maybe the only reason you haven’t noticed all of the anti-Semitic things Ron Paul has said and done is you have blinders on.
I heard (won’t click over) that his web site took down the 3 year running page offering that filthy forgery of Jew-hatred.
Gee, why’d they do that?
A little sunshine sanitizes so much.
I guess when Paul is scrutinized he has to fall back on his, ”I didn’t know what it said,” routine.
Lousy way to run a public life, worse way to run a country.
@anticsrocks:
Newt’s also a prolific liar.
@Ron Paul Is Right: You said:
Yeah, and Ron Paul is soooo honest. Don’t get me started on his lies.
ROFLMAO!
@anticsrocks:
Ron Paul Is Right
hi, you have to do some explaining about the 3 missing pages with antisemic on it
@Ron Paul Is Right: I would be glad to show you some examples, if you’d like. But let’s be honest here. No matter what I post, you will obfuscate and deny all charges directed at your hero.
I apologized for calling you a jackass, and I have listed positives about all the GOP candidates still in the race for the nomination. You continue to take the stance that your candidate of choice is perfect and can do now wrong. When pressed you admit nothing, and instead lash out by going to youtube to find hit piece videos on Newt.
Ron Paul is a serial liar, on par with the man presently in the Oval Office. No matter how many times he is on video saying things that show this, his followers deny, deny, deny.
That is the cult of personality that surrounds this man, and it is creepy. Ron Paul is an ordinary man, like all the others in the race, no more, no less.
I have had several conversations with RP supporters, with people I don’t know and with folks I do know. Excepting for two personal friends, each RP supporter does the same thing you have done on this thread – dissemble, misdirect and out and out avoid any salient points made about RP. Then the ad hominems begin to flow.
It must be beyond you to admit that Newt, Santorum and Romney have any positive traits or accomplishments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_print.html
Gee, I wonder if Ron’s syncophants will ever admit they have been deceived by a money-grubbing conman?
Nan G
beside being a good cook, you have a unlimited resourceful brain
this one is such a good find
bye
NAN G says “Ron Paul is a money grubbing conman.” What do you “Paul syncophants” think of that?
Semper FI “The pot stirrer”
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich,
Denial is not just a river in Egypt and the Ron Paul syncophants are deep in it.
@Nan G:
Game.
Set.
Match.
Well played.
Anticsrocks and Nan To be clear I’m no fan of R.P. and he’s certainly faded from the Repub.debate,as have his supporters at F.A.
I see a tough battle till June with Romney going over 1144 in Cal. on June 5th or final winner take all primary in Utah.
At this point Romney needs Gingrich to stay in if he wants to win on the first ballot. Granted, it doesn’t matter that much if he falls a little short of it… Even if he only gets 1050 or something on the first round I would expect he can win on the second.
@Richard Wheeler:
We’re still here Mr. Wheeler, we, like our candidate have been marginalized, ridiculed, belittled and subjected to blatant voter fraud by the GOP, all for supporting the candidate who most closely follows the Constitution. But we’re not going anywhere and the GOP is in for rude awakening come convention time.
As for not posting as often I can speak only for myself, I simply grew tired of beating my head against a brick wall, you “conservatives” are going to end up supporting the lesser of two evils yet again and Marvelous Mitt will end up being your nominee. I refuse to vote for “Obama lite”. Anyway…Happy St. Paddy’s Day.
Poppa T ” Top of the morning to you” I respect your steadfastness. The Conservs. have floundered badly.Romney will be nominated with Paul being given a prime speaking slot at the Convention.
Poppa_T
hi, too bad that the resentment is among the same side oF who want to win the next election,
winning as the most important thing to do no matter the winner of this side,
winning because the wrong come from the other side, not this side after all,
you know that if PAUL would rise on the top ,we would rally for him to get the position,
I respect your standing for your choice of PAUL and he has many good plans to establish if he win,
he is well like for what he represent even by the follower of other CANDIDATES,
and if the odds would have been like before OBAMA and his advisers wish to destroy AMERICA, I’m sure RON PAUL would be on top as we speak, but the next election is a must not take a chance on the last debate to strike a solid decision from the PEOPLE WHO WILL BE THE DECIDER AND WILL PUNISH THE WRONG DONE TO AMERICA, IN ONE VOICE ONLY FOR AMERICA, MANY MILITARY LIKE RON PAUL and for a smart reason too,
but the votes will have to be only for the survival of THE CONSTITUTION THEY TRY TO EXTERMINATE, AND 4 MORE YEARS WOULD ACHIEVED IT, SO THE VOTE WILL HAVE TO BE MASSIVE DIRECTED TO AMERICA ALONE IN PERIL, NOT ANY CANDIDATES BUT THE ONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN,
WHO WILL BE NOMINATED, HE WILL HAVE A GIGANTIC JOB,
THIS TIME MORE THAN ANY OTHER SINCE THE BIRTH OF AMERICA WHICH DEMAND ALL TO FIGHT FOR HER LIFE
AND YOU’RES
BY
the ASTEROID EROS HAS BEEN FOUND TO COUNTAIN 200,000 TIMES MORE GOLD
THAN ANY GOLD ON EARTH,
LET’S GET IT DOWN, BEFORE THE OTHER DO IT.
THAT WOULD PAY FOR OBAMA ‘S MULTI TRILLION DEBT
I find it odd that, generally speaking, folks who support Romney, Newt or Santorum say they will support the eventual nominee; yet RP supporters, generally speaking, say they just won’t vote.
Seems a bit immature to me.
I support Newt. My first choice was Cain, but the MSM and Axelrod fixed that. At this point, it doesn’t look like Newt will get the nod, but if Romney or Santorum does, I am going to wholeheartedly support and vote for them. Hell, I would vote for an orange juice can over Obama.
Anticsrocks says “it doesn’t look like Newt will get the nod” Ya think? You’ll vote for Mitt or Rick you say.Others here unnamed (rhyme with Marley and Vault) won’t forsake principles to vote for Mitt.
The way you’ve personally blasted R.P. and his supporters here why do you think they’d vote for your guy?
@Richard Wheeler: Um, no I don’t think Newt will get the nomination unless it comes down to multiple votes at the convention. That’s why I said that, Rich. You trying out for the role of Captain Obvious now?
And while we’re at it, now it is my fault if the Paulbearers decide not to vote? I never knew I wielded that much power.
anticsrocks
just take note of another poisonous arrow slung this time at you,
same pattern arrow are silent as opose to silver bullet
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Yeah Beezy that’s what happens when you disagree with a liberal, they just cannot take it and most always resort to the nastier side of their personality.
Anticsrocks C’mon now. “nasty” would be a kind word for your treatment of Ron Paul and his supporters.[‘ve displayed my usual calm and friendly demeanor.
Good morning Ms.Bees
Chaos at the Missouri Caucuses and Ron Paul supporters arrested.
What does that tell you?
In one area the caucus had to be suspended with no vote at all…..again because of Ron Paul supporters.
Delegates were openly lying about who they would represent, gaining votes from people who supported Santorum or Romney while not really being delegates for either man.
Robert’s Rules for Order were being used by the Ron Paul supporters to delay votes until all of the older voters had gotten too tired to stay any longer.
So, who ”won?”